On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:58:22 +1000, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: : thousand threads? a couple of million? In Python, it'll probably end : up pretty similar; chances are you won't be taking much advantage of : multiple CPUs/cores (because the threads will all be waiting for : socket read, or the single thread will mostly be waiting in select()), : so it's mainly a resource usage issue. Probably worth testing with : your actual code.
For my own application, the performance issue is rather negligible. I don't have more than about 50 idle CPU-s which I can access easily, and even if I had, it would always stop at 6-7000 functions calls to evaluate. In the current test runs using 4 clients and one master on a quad-core, the master never uses more than around 7% of a core, and that includes some simple post-processing as well as com's. In short, my philosophy is that it works, so why change it? But, I am aware that some more technical adept programmers think otherwise, and I am quite happy with that :-) -- :-- Hans Georg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list